This may be a bit out of place here but since the discussion in this topic is for the upcoming title War in the West and there is no similar topic for the rest of the titles linked to WitE I'm posting this here.

For the large scale game (or for any later games) is there any plans on revisiting the production/factory system?

I'm missing the option to change factory production of both planes and AFVs as well as the option to manually upgrade/change AFVs on units in the way it could be done in the previous games of the series (ie, Second Front/War in Russia where you could manually change what type of AFV a unit would employ). I feel this option added extra spice to the game as well as some replayvalue where it gave me the option to experiment with cases such as 'What if the germans decided to only build panzer IVs?' or 'What if the russians only built one type of fighterbomber?' etc.

This may be a bit out of place here but since the discussion in this topic is for the upcoming title War in the West and there is no similar topic for the rest of the titles linked to WitE I'm posting this here.

For the large scale game (or for any later games) is there any plans on revisiting the production/factory system?

I'm missing the option to change factory production of both planes and AFVs as well as the option to manually upgrade/change AFVs on units in the way it could be done in the previous games of the series (ie, Second Front/War in Russia where you could manually change what type of AFV a unit would employ). I feel this option added extra spice to the game as well as some replayvalue where it gave me the option to experiment with cases such as 'What if the germans decided to only build panzer IVs?' or 'What if the russians only built one type of fighterbomber?' etc.

That wasn't implemented for a variety of reasons. One of which how open to abuse it was.

This may be a bit out of place here but since the discussion in this topic is for the upcoming title War in the West and there is no similar topic for the rest of the titles linked to WitE I'm posting this here.

For the large scale game (or for any later games) is there any plans on revisiting the production/factory system?

I'm missing the option to change factory production of both planes and AFVs as well as the option to manually upgrade/change AFVs on units in the way it could be done in the previous games of the series (ie, Second Front/War in Russia where you could manually change what type of AFV a unit would employ). I feel this option added extra spice to the game as well as some replayvalue where it gave me the option to experiment with cases such as 'What if the germans decided to only build panzer IVs?' or 'What if the russians only built one type of fighterbomber?' etc.

That wasn't implemented for a variety of reasons. One of which how open to abuse it was.

I think the open production could very well be abused, but I don't think we're seeing much if any abuse (if even possible) with the manual aircraft equipment changing option already available in WitE. I definitely hope they can add the same option for AFVs, in either WitW or WitE 2.0.

I think the open production could very well be abused, but I don't think we're seeing much if any abuse (if even possible) with the manual aircraft equipment changing option already available in WitE. I definitely hope they can add the same option for AFVs, in either WitW or WitE 2.0.

The reason you can manually change aircraft and not AFVs in WitE is that aircraft do not have fixed TOEs like ground units. The TOEs are designed to keep upgrading AFVs to the latest models so manual change would provide little benefit and AFV production is so much lower than aircraft production that surpluses are less of an issue. Actually to implement manual change for AFVs would require a system even more restrictive than the current one to prevent the kind of abuses seen in SECOND FRONT and WAR IN RUSSIA.

ORIGINAL: jaw The reason you can manually change aircraft and not AFVs in WitE is that aircraft do not have fixed TOEs like ground units. The TOEs are designed to keep upgrading AFVs to the latest models so manual change would provide little benefit and AFV production is so much lower than aircraft production that surpluses are less of an issue. Actually to implement manual change for AFVs would require a system even more restrictive than the current one to prevent the kind of abuses seen in SECOND FRONT and WAR IN RUSSIA.

I will agree that manual production could be abused but that is something that should be taken into consideration in how it is implemented, not to mention it is fairly easy to add a game option like "Manual Production ON/OFF" much like Fog of War etc.

As for the TOE being the limiting factor, I doubt it. Look at the following:

Notice that the TOE just states that these divisions should have 151 medium tanks (the type, not any specific model) as well as 16 light tanks. Observe that neither of these divisions actually have the exact same vehicles types despite them all being the same 44 Panzer TOE.

"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton WITE-Beta WITW-Alpha The Logistics Phase is like Black Magic and Voodoo all rolled into one.

I share to some extent IronDukes sentiments against the scale. A game gets (at least for me) most of the fun out of the mistakes one can make and/or avoid. IDs point boils down to this - no matter how realistic on the 'physical' scale, how many numbers are crunched - if the only possible variable that can have some influence on the course of the game based on a fixed start/setting, the 'what if' factor is abstracted - then there is no 'game'.

So no matter how many numbers the naval system crunches, the air system or the logistic system - based on the 'historic start settings' the Allied player needs to be utterly stupid and incompetent to have some minor impact on the campaign. The Axis player on the other hand can be brilliant or stupid - it just doesn't matter.

While GG's games are very well researched and I really respect the huge amount of effort that is put into maps, OOBs, TOEs etc etc I think the 'game side' is somewhat... not creative. This can be seen esp. in regard to 'historical correctness' (like the often discussed withdrawls for instance).

In regard to 'historical correctness' I think most players want 'physical' correct game mechanics and a 'historical defined' STARTING situation - if players wanted a historical replay they would watch videos...

To include 'historical events' I think it would be wise to get a bit creative. Take withdrawls for instance - yes, they happened - but on the other hand the player is OKH! And while some 'Führerbefehle' ordered some units from one front to the other most of the withdrawls were organized and ordered by OKH. A creative solution would have been to have OKH decide on a unit to withdraw with strings attached (at least X% TOE, morale, vehicles etc etc) and only rarely use 'Führerbefehle'. Or take the Soviet side - running for the hills. Yes, this is ahistorical and some suggestions were made to counter this strategy. The same is of course true for 6th Army/Stalingrad like situations for the Germans. A creative solution to this (besides the standard VP/AP/city-factory incentive) could have been to shoot the leading general. So if a unit retreats more then two hex backwards the general is shot and a fresh, inexperienced (but political correct) lakai takes the position. THAT would be a 'historical' mechanism - and it would be up to the player if he wants his army conserved but led by 'noobs' - or take a chance and fight but conserve his generals. (Of course the same could be done for advancing/attacking, unless units don't advance at least x hex or at least fight one battle the commanding officer gets shot).

A game is not about the amount of counters put and the amount of numbers crunched - but about options and decisions to make - decisions that have an impact on the results of course.

If they have tightened up the logistics engine for WitW vs the existing one in WitE, you will see a very tight game as the Western player will have to balance the amount of forces that are fighting in the West with the amount of supplies that can be shipped in and transported to those units. A close examination of the Western front after Normandy shows that logistics were the major restraint on the Allies. Also note that Hitler planned the 'Battle of the Bulge' as a drive on the major port of Antwerp to cut the Allies off from the supplies coming in through that port.

The game should be a tight and tense balance between the number of units and the supply ability for the Allies which results in the Axis being able to take advantages of any mistakes the Allies might make to prolong the war or even damage the Allies sufficiently to make them pause or even withdraw from the mainland yet again. Things on the Western front were actually fairly close for the Allies. Britain was running low on manpower already, France did not have a formal governmental structure and was actually undergoing a purge/civil war as the front line advanced through France, and the US had political pressure at home to make some effort against the Japanese whose attack put them into the war in the first place.

So there is still plenty of 'game' and decisions to make. Historically the Allies decided to invade Normandy so they could capture and use the port of Cherbourg. But Cherbourg managed to hold out long enough to almost destroy the port and the Allies could not get very far because they could not land enough supplies to enable the breakout.

Of course, this all depends on them tightening up the logistics engine from its current state. Something that would really help WitE too. I wish them luck.

"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton WITE-Beta WITW-Alpha The Logistics Phase is like Black Magic and Voodoo all rolled into one.

In WITW you create air directive to the Air HQs, which are executed during the air execution phase. So it is very HQ centric and allows to model various doctrine limitations. Each air directive then can be adjusted next air planning phase with no need to set orders for each group or air base every turn. The goal is to allow most of the system to operate with minimal amount of orders.

As an example player should be able to create ground attack doctrine for the 2nd RAF Tactical Air Command. Specify the target (center) hex, area (radius), priority for the targets (interdict, units, air fields, railways, rail yards, ports, etc). After that system will generate certain amount of air strikes using available resources and air HQ's doctrine setting.

Depending on the air directive type, player can micromanage and assign particular groups to it, set way points, set intensity, set how many days a week it will fly, set altitude, set minimum planes (escorts) required, enable/disable partial escorts, set air directive's priority, etc.

The core system is almost in and we are getting ready to teach AI using it. At the end anyone could allow AI to run air war if he(she) wants.

An important question for a person that only plays against the computer. How is the AI looking are there any improvements over WitE? I have stopped playing WitE at present because the late war German AI is poor.

An important question for a person that only plays against the computer. How is the AI looking are there any improvements over WitE? I have stopped playing WitE at present because the late war German AI is poor.

It's too early to say how the AI will ultimately play in WitW. It will get a lot of development before release (and since the game only lasts from 43-45 there is less to work on then in WitE which goes from 41-45. Realistically there are no big breakthroughs in AI development, and the basic movement and combat systems are similar, so I don't expect a major difference in AI play. The AI can be a challenge to new players. Those that spend the time to learn and master the game system can always increase the challenge by increasing the level of difficulty.

Similar to WitE, although since there is more going on, especially given the new air game and logistics systems, a faster computer is always better. We won't have final specs until we're further along.

It all depends on the integrated card, if this is a very old intel integrated VGA then it may be problematic because of their drivers not beeing optimized for games, a decent Intel card should be better. Any ATI/AMD or nvidia integrated card should work if it's not too old. What you need is a decent amount of RAM and good CPU power as AI calculation is cpu-intensive.

Is there some research/consultation with a military think-tank, or some type of historical research organization, on trying to figure out typical casualty results from battles of the game's size, going on for WitW or for that matter did it happen with WitE?

No think tank, just the Gary and Pavel think tank supplemented by lots of input from various people (data gurus, scenario designers and testers).

As for the card, with WitE it says it requires a 128MB video card, but in reality it worked with some integrated cards. Speed does improve with better/bigger cards and better/faster systems. WitW is similar to WitE, but could easily end up slower in some ways so bigger/faster is always better. Denniss probably has it right.

You're a Historian as well as a Wargame designer. In 43-45, the equation is simple. Only by bottling the Allies up can the Germans create any kind of operational campaign. When the Germans aren't bottling the Allies up, they will be retreating, plain and simple. They don't have the numbers to create a front line the length of central France (...)

That is my point, and what I suspect the Beta AARs will reveal to you. Before turn 70 (ish) and the retreat to the west wall, there are only two operational moments on Land. The Italian peninsula and the bottling up of the initial landing. If these are a collective 15-20 hexes long and mainly attritional frontal assaults, then the game has a problem (although admittedly, perhaps only one I'm bothered about). As the German player, giving me a new naval model and a new air model is scant comfort in the light of this, because I don't have any ships and only have a handful of planes piloted by average pilots who don't have the fuel to fly very often.

In a nutshell, this is my critique. I apologise if it's taken a few pages to get there.

I wish you, your team and your company all the very best with your endeavours.

Respect and regards, IronDuke

With all respect, I don't agree. :-) Your are completly right - a 10 miles square gives no room for tactical skills. But the war wasn't really decided in such a small piece of land... Not matter how skillful the Germans could defend Kasserine, Casino, Normandy and so on, their most important weapon - the Luftwaffe - was grinded. What is a Panzer-Division without fighter cover? Let's even not think about CAS. And even if you still have the pilots and the planes, you are beaten if your fuel factories were crushed. In the end it's all about economy. The second, maybe most decisive front against Germany was some thousend feet above the ground. R&D in WitP doesn't really matter, to be honest - all their planes were crap. No comperation to the last generation of german a/c - just imagine Kursk/Normandy etc. with an additional 1,000-2,000 FW 190's/Me26x (and no, I'm not axio-phil, btw).

The Allies must destroy - the Luftwaffe und the pilots first, - than the avitation AND/OR the fuel industry - and the logistics as well before 1944.

And if you are to hasty, the Red Army will be in Amsterdam before you :-)

The Germans were caught cold, they didn't have the hindsight and reacted to late, because drop tanks and long range fighters could not be imagined by Hermann. So, it could be a little bit harder, or?

Just one little remark for the team: No more Lvov pockets, please. :-)))

Allow just a little bit more variation - the Allies must search and find the bottleneck. Any asymmetric but fixed setup of forces became vulnerable for 'fixed' (=boring) moves. Allow c2-c4, d2-d4 etc, not only e2-e4.

In WitE each side of a battle has one HQ ( and commander ) that is in charge of that side, even if a side has units from multiple commands, but the battle report doesn't mention them; perhaps this feature can be put into WitW.

June start 1943 (players free to set up any invasion targets on turn 1 with some advanced prep) July start 1943 (invasion of Sicily plotted with full preparation) May 1944 (players free to set up any invasion targets on turn 1 with some advanced prep) June 1944 (invasion of Normandy plotted with full preparation)

We currently have versions of the last 3 listed. As you can see, the idea is to allow players that want to have flexibility in strategic choices to have the chance to make a different choice. The Allied player still has to deal with getting air control over the desired target, and the German player has some garrison requirements that tie down some troops, but each has the ability in the "early start" campaigns to make significant changes in their plans.

One feature I would really like to see implemented in WITW is the possibility to give the AI more time to think, similar to what is often done for chess programs. This of course might depend on the way the WITW/E AI 'thinks', but basically what I am saying is that I'd like an option where I get a stronger AI if I am willing to wait longer for it to complete a move. Is that a possibility?

With all respect, I don't agree. :-) Your are completly right - a 10 miles square gives no room for tactical skills. But the war wasn't really decided in such a small piece of land... Not matter how skillful the Germans could defend Kasserine, Casino, Normandy and so on, their most important weapon - the Luftwaffe - was grinded. What is a Panzer-Division without fighter cover? Let's even not think about CAS. And even if you still have the pilots and the planes, you are beaten if your fuel factories were crushed. In the end it's all about economy. The second, maybe most decisive front against Germany was some thousend feet above the ground. R&D in WitP doesn't really matter, to be honest - all their planes were crap. No comperation to the last generation of german a/c - just imagine Kursk/Normandy etc. with an additional 1,000-2,000 FW 190's/Me26x (and no, I'm not axio-phil, btw).

The Allies must destroy - the Luftwaffe und the pilots first, - than the avitation AND/OR the fuel industry - and the logistics as well before 1944.

And if you are to hasty, the Red Army will be in Amsterdam before you :-)

The Germans were caught cold, they didn't have the hindsight and reacted to late, because drop tanks and long range fighters could not be imagined by Hermann. So, it could be a little bit harder, or?

Greetings

Well, from where I am sitting you are only confirming what IronDuke has already said. That the war in the west was won in the air, not on the ground. The problem then being that it would have taken some insane brilliance or miracle for the germans to pull out a win.

The reason WitE is such a living game is not because it has a great ai but because the game is challenging for both sides. If it takes a miracle to win as the germans then why on earth would anyone want to play them? No amount of polish on a navy model where the german navy can't really do anything and an air model that, while it may be fun and excellent, still won't really make a german player especially happy when it all just comes down to chosing which factories to attempt to protect.

I'm not judging the game until it is done but I can sure understand IronDuke's concern. For the game to be fun as a german player there needs to be some way to make a difference and that is not going to be with the Kriegsmarine or the Luftwaffe. In the end, if the game isn't fun and exciting for axis players then the multiplayer part of the game will end up with a bunch of Allies looking for opponents rather than actually playing multiplayer games.